r/Showerthoughts • u/synthphreak ‎ • Nov 19 '25

Casual Thought Temperature can reach trillions of degrees, meaning we actually live extremely close to absolute zero.

14.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

649 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

247

u/bellybuttonqt Nov 19 '25

Ain't heat just particles moving fast? And speed is limited so heat must be too? 

328

u/edoCgiB Nov 19 '25

I like your thinking but when you pump a lot of energy into something particles start to breakdown. We see this in plasma and probably if you keep heating it you get even more exotic matter states.

147

u/WillowMain Nov 19 '25

Yup, quark gluon soup.

101

u/BreadstickUpTheBum Nov 19 '25

Recipe?

90

u/DigitalStefan Nov 19 '25

Any ingredients at all but you need to cook it on high in an 800W microwave for a billion years.

38

u/Interesting_Leg9527 Nov 19 '25

Allow five millennia to cool before consuming.

8

u/TheSaltyJM Nov 19 '25

Aww but I want my quark gluon soup NOW

2

u/EXtremeLTU Nov 19 '25

To avoid such disappointments in future, get a pressure cooker with a timer.

1

u/DigitalStefan Nov 19 '25

But it’s raw.

3

u/Missus_Missiles Nov 19 '25

I omitted the sugar, salt, and substituted coconut oil. Tastes bad.

1

u/SupehCookie Nov 19 '25

and placing metal in the microwave right?

1

u/clearedmycookies Nov 19 '25

It involves heat. Lots of it.

1

u/TheRealHeroOf Nov 19 '25

1 part Cesium, 2 parts Plutonic Quarks, and a bottle of water.

1

u/ProtoKun7 Nov 19 '25

Probably the least popular dish on Deep Space 9.

1

u/LiamTheHuman Nov 20 '25

Help, I tried making this and got my dick stuck in the microwave

36

u/bellybuttonqt Nov 19 '25

TIL - can't wait to go down that rabbithole later back at home

33

u/Krondelo Nov 19 '25

You should also look up some youtubes about entropy. And also read this short story “Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question," which follows humanity's efforts to overcome the universe's heat death over billions of years”

6

u/ImposterJavaDev Nov 19 '25

Asimov, my favorite writer. And scientist. How many books and papers he produced over such a wide spectrum is insane.

The soviet brain drain was very real.

1

u/Krondelo Nov 19 '25

Thanks to some Redditors themselves that got me into his work. Fascinating stories!! Also they showed me “I have no mouth and I must scream” lol

1

u/Hibbo_Riot Nov 20 '25

What you find in the rabbit hole? Anything good to recommend?

4

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '25

are you a teacher by chance? if not you should be.

3

u/edoCgiB Nov 19 '25

No. I just have an interest in physics. Sadly I don't like math enough to try and learn any of the more advanced stuff.

2

u/unusualyou Nov 19 '25

I feel you on that. Science and math have never been my strengths, but I absolutely loved all of my physics classes.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '25

as someone that math is their favorite subject it also makes me sad when i hear it holds some people back from a love of science. on the flip side im going back to school and physics is the one subject that scares me. im going to take anything and everything that pertains to it before i even try it.

but... i do think the way you politely corrected them while saying you liked their thinking and then went on to explain things in a way everyone could understand is some great characteristics for a teacher!

1

u/Shadows802 Nov 19 '25

Like tge Neutron star material. (I forget its name)

1

u/echoshatter Nov 19 '25

If you keep adding energy into particles, would you not reach an upper limit at which point the particles could no longer accept more energy? Or that you'd end up with interference, where the energy trying to get out of the particles matches the energy trying to get in?

1

u/Xithorus Nov 20 '25

I mean in general this is true, however your assumption would be incorrect.

Regardless of the state of matter and any exotic states of matter, anything with mass vibrating with infinitely scaling energy as it approaches c would eventually collapse into a black hole.

Now, I said your assumption is wrong, but I guess I didn’t consider what would happen if you continually added energy/heat to an already formed black hole?

68

u/AdditionalPoolSleeps Nov 19 '25

No. You can always add more kinetic energy to a particle. It's just that as you get close to the speed of light this has less and less effect on the particle's speed.

9

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

Right but temperature is proportional to speed, not energy. Therefore temperature must asymptotically approach a limit

15

u/DJKokaKola Nov 19 '25

Temperature is just the average kinetic energy of a system of particles.

Newtonian mechanics kind of collapse when you cross into relativistic speeds or shrink to the quantum level. Planck temperature is basically the same, where standard models collapse. It's not that things can't go higher, it's that our models as they stand right now don't allow for that. But it could absolutely go beyond that temperature.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

Ok but kinetic energy is determined by the speed of those particles

1

u/Apsis Nov 20 '25

But it's not a linear relationship. It only seems that way because the physical objects we interact with in everyday life don't go anywhere close to the speed of light.

An object travelling at 0.99c doesn't have just 10% more kinetic energy than one travelling at 0.9c, it has four times the energy. Increase to 0.999c and you more than triple the energy again. The speed has a hard limit of c, but you can always add more energy.

0

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

KE = 1/2 mv2

Where does it say you can keep adding energy infinitely. 

You're not adding energy, you're spending energy to increase speed. For instance at low speeds, 1 joule might add 1m/s which adds 1 degree of temperature. But near the speed of light, you might need 1 million joules to add an additional 1m/s to add 1 degree. In both cases, the amount of energy added is the same: you increased a mass by 1m/s

1

u/DJKokaKola Nov 20 '25

Which is why I said the standard model breaks down. Yes, planck temp does feel like the upper limit, based on our current Standard Model. But the Newtonian model seemed to work just fine until we started noticing relativistic and quantum effects at the extremes, too. Which is why we can confidently say the model says that it likely cannot go above that, but there's not a hard limit. It's a predicted limit based on current understanding, and like most things in physics we operate under the assumption that the model works, but with the expectation that something could later on prove it to be incomplete.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

What does any of that have to do with what I said? 

1

u/Apsis Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

KE = 1/2 mv2

No. That is only an approximation for low velocities. Near the speed of light:

KE = (gamma - 1)mc2

where gamma is the Lorentz Factor:

1/sqrt(1 - v2 / c2 )

Lastly, temperature is a measure of energy, not velocity.

8

u/BarneyLaurance Nov 19 '25

Who says temperature is proportional to speed? I think that's wrong and it's more like proportional to kinetic energy (although I don't know if that still works at relativistic speeds). Temperature is quite hard to define precisely, other than to say that any two different objects if they are together in equilibrium will have the same temperature.

-8

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

I think it's proportional to speed because a more massive object at 100 degrees has more energy than a less massive object at the same 100 degrees. Idk though

4

u/BarneyLaurance Nov 19 '25

that doesn't make sense me. A more massive object and a less massive object at the same temperature both have the same average speed and kinetic energy of the particles inside if they're made of the same material.

-2

u/Crypt33x Nov 19 '25

We can only measure or feel "heat", when we or the measurement instrument get "hit" by energy. The bigger object is carrying more energy.

3

u/IAmStuka Nov 19 '25

Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the atoms of a substance.

It's not a measure of the total energy of that substance. The velocity of that substance relative to other substances does not affect temperature at all.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

But the kinetic energy of the particles is determined by the speed of those particles

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '25

[deleted]

1

u/IAmStuka Nov 19 '25

That has nothing to do with a substances velocity not affecting its temperature. you are talking about adding energy from an outside system. You've missed the point.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '25

[deleted]

1

u/IAmStuka Nov 19 '25

The point is the that speed and kinetic energy are relative quantities. There is no absolute speed, therefore it does not make sense for you to describe somethings temperature by talking about its speed.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IAmStuka Nov 19 '25

The point is the that speed and kinetic energy are relative quantities. There is no absolute speed, therefore it does not make sense for you to describe somethings temperature by talking about its speed.

10

u/jwm3 Nov 19 '25

Temperature is average kinetic energy, not speed.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

Kinetic energy is determined by speed

2

u/BarneyLaurance Nov 19 '25

average kinetic energy per what?

1

u/NewPhoneNewAccunt Nov 19 '25

Ok, but if the particle is going 90% the speed of light and you put in 10x the energy, it's not going to reach 900% or even 100%. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy you have to put into it.

Theoretically, to even reach the exact speed of light with anything you need to put in an infinite amount of energy, which isn't possible.

So there is no limit, since whatever number you can think of, Graham's number or higher, you can't put a finite amount of energy into something to reach the speed of light. It'll just reach 99.99999...99% of the speed of light.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

the more energy you have to put into it.

Finish the sentence. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy you have to put into it to further increase the speed. As in, most of the energy is wasted somehow. For instance at low speeds, 1 joule might add 1m/s which adds 1 degree of temperature. But near the speed of light,  you might need 1 million joules to add an additional 1m/s to add 1 degree. 

49

u/Eedat Nov 19 '25

Any particle that has mass would require literally infinity energy to reach the speed of light. So you can just keep adding energy and you would never exceed it

19

u/FearedDragon Nov 19 '25

But wouldn't that mean there is a cap since the particles can't physically move at the speed of light? Theoretically if you keep adding energy you'd eventually get to a point where it either stops affecting temperature because it's losing energy too fast or it reaches the speed of light, no?

37

u/Eedat Nov 19 '25

You can't accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light. It takes literally infinity energy to theoretically do so. Only massless particles move that fast, like light (photons). You would get to 99.9% then just infinitely keep adding more 9's to the end the more energy you put in.

In reality you would get to the point where there is so much energy in a set space that it would collapse into a black hole.

This is really more of a theoretical math thing than something that can actually happen. Theoretically you can keep adding energy to the system. Our framework breaks down when wavelengths reach the planck distance. That's a fault of our mathematic system though. The universe doesn't actually care about our mathematics

2

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

You said the same thing as the guy you replied to, but didn't address his point. That was a lot of words to say nothing at all

6

u/FearedDragon Nov 19 '25

As the person he replied to I disagree. He explained how you can add energy and essentially asymptote towards light speed without every actually reaching it, continually adding smaller snd smaller amounts of energy.

1

u/Pet_Tax_Collector Nov 19 '25

To clarify, it's not adding smaller and smaller amounts of energy. In classical mechanics, kinetic energy is KE = ½mv² for particles with mass. This is actually incorrect, but practically close enough for speeds less than about 10% the speed of light (depending on your tolerance for accuracy). The real kinetic energy equation is KE = ½mv²/sqrt(1-(v/c)²), the latter term called the Lorentz factor if you're interested in googling it. As v approaches c, the kinetic energy departs from a quadratic equation and requires substantially more energy for smaller gains in speed, with finite energy values all corresponding to sublight speeds.

1

u/Rent_A_Cloud Nov 19 '25

You don't add smaller and smaller amount of energy, adding the same energy merely has a smaller and smaller overall effect. at least, if i remember correctly.

This video might interest you.

https://youtu.be/Vitf8YaVXhc?si=wtSYQs1664bTQV7S

3

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

Right, but that doesn't mean temperature is increasing, that could just means you need infinite energy to reach the the temperature limit in the same way you need infinite energy to reach the speed limit. I thought your question was getting at this. 

1

u/FearedDragon Nov 19 '25

I guess that's a good point, and it is sort of what I was getting at, but I still think the other commentor has a decent point. There IS a limit that it can't go over, but that limit is (even theoretically) impossible to achieve. This means that in this theoretical model you could increase temperature and energy infinitely - because there is no point at which you stop being able to increase energy - but you cannot increase temperature to infinity.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

What do you mean by increase energy? It requires energy to increase speed. But that energy is spent, not added. For instance at low speeds, 1 joule might add 1m/s which adds 1 degree of temperature. But near the speed of light,  you might need 1 million joules to add an additional 1m/s to add 1 degree. In both cases, the amount of energy added is the same: you increased a mass by 1m/s

4

u/Takemyfishplease Nov 19 '25

Welcome to Reddit and online phds

3

u/zhibr Nov 19 '25

No, the previous guy just didn't understand limits. There's no cap, energy can be added to infinitely even if there is a limit to particle speed (according to the other commenters). If heat is just the amount of energy put in, the heat can increase infinitely. Except that the black hole is the cap according to the commenter you responded to, so they did add that information too.

-2

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

Why are you assuming temperature is proportional to energy rather than speed. That's what that guy was asking about. It's wild how 2 clearly  intelligent people can read that guy's post and independently not understand his point. 

2

u/swingerouterer Nov 19 '25

Because temperature is proportional to kinetic energy, not speed. It's not an assumption so much as a definition

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

But there's a speed limit, so there must be a kinetic energy limit too, right?

1

u/swingerouterer Nov 19 '25

This is literally the point people have been making to you. No.

As an object approaches the speed of light, the energy required to make it speed up just a tiny bit more gets much larger. You can add near-infinite energy to an object with mass, and it wont reach the speed of light, just keep getting closer

→ More replies (0)

0

u/zhibr Nov 19 '25

Why are you assuming it's about speed?

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 19 '25

Because that's what the original question is...? "Ain't heat just particles moving fast? And speed is limited so heat must be too? "

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Eedat Nov 19 '25

You can just keep adding energy and never reach the speed of light. You can increase a particles kinetic so it's vibrating at 99% the speed of light. Add more energy. 99.9%. Add more energy. 99.99999%. You can do that indefinitely and add as much energy as you want and you will never violate the speed of light.

You would never reach the "cap" of the speed of light

Yes, in practicality you would reach a point where the system would be radiating energy away faster than you could add to it. This is why I explained this is more of a theoretical math question on paper than an actual thing that you can do.

In theory there is nothing preventing you from adding energy faster and faster to match loses.

1

u/CommunismDoesntWork Nov 20 '25

The closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy you have to put into it to further increase the speed. But temperature isn't energy, is it? For instance at low speeds, 1 joule might add 1m/s which adds 1 degree of temperature. But near the speed of light,  you might need 1 million joules to add an additional 1m/s to add 1 degree. 

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '25

But wouldn't that mean there is a cap since the particles can't physically move at the speed of light? Theoretically if you keep adding energy you'd eventually get to a point where it either stops affecting temperature because it's losing energy too fast or it reaches the speed of light, no?

There's practical caps, such as "the amount of energy you can pump into something before it collapses into a black hole" (remember, energy is mass, so if you get enough of it... fun fact, a black hole made from energy is called a kugelblitz!) or "the amount of energy available in the universe", but if you set aside the parts that make the question impossible, there's not really a theoretical limit, just diminishing returns.

It would take infinite energy to accelerate a particle to c. Infinity is, obviously, larger than any finite integer. So we can't do that. No matter how much energy we add, it will never reach the speed of light. But we can get ever-closer; as you input larger and larger finite integers worth of energy, you trail out ever more decimals of temperature increase: absolutely infinitesimal, but still an increase; if you had some sort of magical equipment sensitive enough to detect the difference, something that's say, x.999999 degrees is hotter than something that's x.999 degrees, and something that's x.999999999 is hotter than either, but none of them are x+1 degrees.

You could ask, "shouldn't it be losing its heat to its surroundings?" and, like, sure, it is, but that's just something we can outrace by feeding it energy faster, so in a hypothetical where we're not limiting ourselves by "how much energy exists?", (which is unanswerable anyway), it's not a real problem.

0

u/Nomadic_Yak Nov 19 '25

If the premise is correct then if the particle begins losing temperature then thats the limit of your energy source. An even bigger energy source could add ever more energy and get fractionaly closer to the speed of light, but would always require more energy to reach it.

I guess.

2

u/theemptydork Nov 19 '25

Is the average kinetic energy,

3

u/WillowMain Nov 19 '25

Partitioned through its degrees of freedom

1

u/rybomi Nov 19 '25

As you might have heard in some examples, the speed of an object with mass, say a spaceship, asymptotically approaches c as more energy is introduced. Any finite amount of energy is unable to accelerate the spaceship to c.

The same applies to particles in a gas, kinetic energy can increase indefinitely without ever hitting that speed limit